Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease which occurs when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin (Type I), or when the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces (Type II). This condition typically leads to an increased concentration of glucose in the blood (hyperglycemia), which can cause an array of physiological derangements (such as, for example, kidney failure, skin ulcers, or bleeding into the vitreous of the eye) associated with the deterioration of small blood vessels. Sometimes, a hypoglycemic reaction (low blood sugar) is induced by an inadvertent overdose of insulin, or after a normal dose of insulin or glucose-lowering agent accompanied by extraordinary exercise or insufficient food intake.
Electrochemical sensors are useful in chemistry and medicine to determine the presence or concentration of a biological analyte. Such sensors are useful, for example, to monitor glucose in diabetic patients and lactate during critical care events. A variety of intravascular, transcutaneous and implantable sensors have been developed for continuously detecting and quantifying blood glucose values. Many conventional implantable glucose sensors suffer from complications within the body and provide only short-term or less-than-accurate sensing of blood glucose. Additionally, many conventional transcutaneous sensors have problems in accurately sensing and reporting back glucose or analyte values continuously over extended periods of time due to non-analyte-related signals caused by interfering species or unknown noise-causing events.
Specifically, transcutaneous and implantable sensors are affected by the in vivo properties and physiological responses in surrounding tissues. For example, a reduction in sensor accuracy following implantation of the sensor is one common phenomenon commonly observed. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as an episode of “dip and recover.” While not wishing to be bound by theory, dip and recover is believed to be triggered by trauma from insertion of the implantable sensor, and possibly from irritation of the nerve bundle near the implantation area, resulting in the nerve bundle reducing blood flow to the implantation area. Alternatively, dip and recover may be related to damage to nearby blood vessels, resulting in a vasospastic event. Any local cessation of blood flow in the implantation area for a period of time leads to a reduced amount of glucose in the area of the sensor. During this time, the sensor has a reduced sensitivity and is unable to accurately track glucose. Thus, dip and recover manifests as a suppressed glucose signal. The suppressed signal from dip and recover often appears within the first day after implantation of the signal, most commonly within the first 12 hours after implantation. Typically, dip and recover will resolve itself within 6-8 hours. Identification of dip and recover can provide information to a patient, physician, or other user that the sensor is only temporarily affected by a short-term physiological response, and that there is no need to remove the implant as normal function will likely return within hours.
Other physiological responses to the implantable sensor can also affect performance of the implantable sensor. For example, during wound healing and foreign body response, the surface of the implantable sensor can become coated in protein or other biological material to such an extent that the sensor is unable to accurately track blood glucose. This phenomenon is sometimes called “biofouling,” and biofouling often manifests itself as a downward shift in sensor sensitivity over time. Similarly, the implantable sensor can become encapsulated by biological material to such an extent that the sensor is unable to provide glucose data, and the sensor is considered to effectively be at end of life. In some cases, the implantable device can be programmed to correct for errors associated with biofouling and end of life, so that identification of these phenomenon aids in providing more accurate glucose data. Identification of these phenomena also generally indicates that the device should be replaced.
Other efforts have been made to obtain blood glucose data from implantable devices and retrospectively determine blood glucose trends for analysis; however, so far these efforts have not adequately identified and compensated for in vivo physiological changes and have not aided the patient in determining reliable real-time blood glucose information.